The applicant has observed the following properties of cube corner prism elements that are pertinent to the invention. These observations are discussed with respect to FIGS. 1-22, all of which are applicant-generated with the exception of FIG. 21. While the prior art is frequently referred to in this section, the interpretations and observations of the art are believed to be unique to the applicant.
Retroreflectors return light from a source to the source and its near vicinity. A retroreflective road sign appears hundreds of times brighter to the driver of a vehicle at night than a plain painted sign. By day, the sign is expected to be about as bright as a plain painted sign. If the sign returned the daytime illumination to its sources, sun and sky, it would be quite dark to the vehicle driver by day. The resolution of this paradox is that retroreflective road signs can be effective both night and day by failing to efficiently retroreflect light that arrives from some sources while efficiently retroreflecting light from other sources. Retroreflective road sign sheetings are the better for their ability to retroreflect vehicle lights at all their realistic positions, but to not retroreflect vehicle lights at nearly impossible positions.
The position of the illuminating source with respect to the road sign sheeting is generally described by two angles: entrance angle β and orientation angle ω. FIG. 1 shows a small rod r perpendicular to a road sign. Light beam e illuminates the sign. Entrance angle β is the angle between e and r. Light beam e casts a shadow s of rod r onto the sign. Entrance angle β could be determined from the length of shadow s. Orientation angle ω is determined by the direction of shadow s. ω is the angle from the nominal “up” direction of the sheeting on the sign to shadow s. The angle is measured clockwise, so in FIG. 1, ω equals approximately +65 degrees. If the beam of illuminating light is itself perpendicular to the sign, then entrance angle β=0 and there is no shadow, so ω has no meaning.
For road sign applications, the cases of large β are almost always cases where the sign is approximately vertical but is swiveled to face not in the direction of the source of illumination. The β values for these signs may be greater than 40°. The ω values in these cases are generally in the range 75° to 95° for signs on the right side of the road or in the range −75° to −95° for signs on the left side of the road. This is the basis for the importance of the plus and minus 90° values for ω.
Sheeting having good retroreflectance at large β also at 0° and 180° values of ω has a practical advantage. Sheeting is a roll good and there are economies to being able to use it either lengthwise or widthwise in sign fabrication. Thus the importance of the ω values −90°, 0°, 90° and 180°.
Retroreflectors are of two optical kinds. The first kind functions <refract, reflect, refract>. A first, curved refracting surface produces an image of the source on a second surface. The image surface is reflective, either specular or diffuse, so image light returns to the first refracting surface, and thence back toward the source. This type of retroreflector is exemplified by the half-metallized glass spheres comprising many road sign sheetings. The second kind of retroreflector functions <reflect, reflect, reflect>. When light enters a corner where three mirrors meet at right angles, it reflects off one, then another, and then the third mirror back towards the source. Likewise when light enters a prism cut as the corner of a cube it can reflect internally off the three cube faces and return in its original direction. Light enters and exits through a fourth prism face. The full sequence is <refract, reflect, reflect, reflect, refract>. Since the two refractions are at the same flat surface, the three reflections are what provide the retroreflection. This type of retroreflector is exemplified by the sub-millimeter prisms ruled in arrays in many road sign sheetings.
The prismatic retroreflector has advantages over the spherical retroreflector for road signs. Prisms can be packed more efficiently. Prisms can be less aberrant. Prisms can also be more selective about which source directions to retroreflect and which to not.
“Cube corner element” is defined as a region of space bounded in part by three planar faces, which faces are portions of three faces of a cube that meet at a single corner of the cube. The geometric efficiency of a retroreflecting cube corner prism depends on two main factors: effective aperture and combined face reflectance. Effective aperture is determined on the assumption that the second factor is perfect. The geometrical form of the cube corner prism and the refractive index of its material determine how much of the area occupied by the prism can participate in retroreflection for illumination of a particular β and ω. The refractive index figures in the effective aperture of the cube corner whenever β≠0°, because of the refraction at the entrance/exit surface.
Effective aperture may be found by ray-tracing. Another well-known method of determining effective aperture is illustrated in FIGS. 2A and 2B. FIG. 2A shows a view of a cube corner retroreflector in the direction of a light ray entering the cube corner. For β=0° illumination, this is simply a view of the cube corner normal to the front surface of the retroreflective sheeting. For any other illumination, the refraction of the incoming ray at the front surface must be taken into account when applying the method of the FIG. 2A.
FIG. 2A diagrams the kind of ray path that is required for a cube corner retroreflection. Illumination enters the cube corner on a ray and the cube corner is pictured as if viewed along that ray. The ray appears as point A in FIG. 2A. The ray reaches a point on face 1 shown at A. The ray then reflects from face 1 to another cube face. The path of this reflection, in the view of the Figure, must appear parallel to the cube dihedral edge 4, which is the dihedral edge that is not part of face 1. The reflected ray reaches face 2 at the point shown at B. Point B is constructed by making dihedral edge 6, the dihedral edge shared by faces 1 and 2, bisect line segment AB. From the point in face 2 shown at B the ray reflects to cube face 3. The path of this reflection, in the view of the Figure, must appear parallel to the cube dihedral edge 6, which is the dihedral edge that is not part of face 3. The reflected ray reaches face 3 at the point shown at C. Point C is constructed by making dihedral edge 4, the dihedral edge shared by faces 2 and 3, bisect line segment BC. From the point in face 3 shown at C, the ray leaves the cube corner in a direction parallel to its first arrival, accomplishing retroreflection. This ray appears as point C.
The shaded region of FIG. 2B shows what area of the cube corner of FIG. 2A is optically effective for retroreflecting illumination that has the direction of the view. This effective aperture is the collection of all points like point A, as described above, for which there is a point B, as described above, on a second face of the cube corner and also a point C, as described above, on a third face of the cube corner.
The cube corner apex appears at point O of FIG. 2A. By geometry, AOC is straight and AO=OC. The illumination entry point and the illumination exit point are symmetrical about the apex, in the diagram. For cube corners of triangular shape, with the three dihedral edges each extending to a triangle vertex, it can be proved that whenever such symmetrical points A and C lie within the triangle the intermediate point B must also lie within the triangle. Thus the diagrammatic method of FIG. 2A simplifies for triangular cube corners. The effective aperture can be found as the intersection of the cube corner triangle and this triangle rotated 180° about point O, as shown in FIG. 2C.
In determining the effective aperture by the diagrammatic method of FIG. 2A, faces are assumed to reflect like mirrors. Faces of a cube corner prism that are metallized do reflect like mirrors, although there is some loss of intensity by absorption at each reflection. For metallization with vacuum sputtered aluminum the loss is about 14%. The loss due to three such reflections is about 36%. Faces of a cube corner that are unmetallized may also reflect like ideal mirrors. Total internal reflection (TIR) involves zero loss in intensity. However, faces of a cube corner that are unmetallized may also reflect feebly. TIR requires that the angle of incidence upon the face exceed a certain critical angle. The critical angle is equal to the arc sine of the reciprocal of the refractive index of the prism material. For example, for n=1.5 material the critical angle is about 41.81°. Light incident at 41.82° is totally internally reflected. Light incident at 41.80° loses 11% of its intensity. Light incident at 41° loses 62% of its intensity. A cube corner prism with unmetallized faces may have one or two faces failing TIR for a particular incoming illumination.
The geometric efficiency of a retroreflecting cube corner prism depends also on the specular reflectance of the surface through which the light enters and exits the prism. This factor depends on the refractive index of the front surface material according to Fresnel's equations for dielectric reflection. The front surface material is often different from the prism body material. This factor in geometric efficiency will be ignored here, since it is independent of the prism design.
Geometric efficiency of an array of retroreflecting cube corners is not completely determined by the geometric efficiency of the individual prisms. Some light that is not retroreflected by one prism can travel to other prisms, generally via total internal reflection off the front surface, and certain routes involving multiple cube corners produce retroreflection. This factor depends on the prism design as well as on the thickness of material between the prisms and the front surface. This factor is best studied by raytracing. Since the cube corners of the present invention do not differ greatly in their inter-cube effects from prior art cube corners, this factor is ignored in the descriptions.
The first factor in a cube corner prism's geometric efficiency, its effective aperture for a particular β and ω, is independent of its being metallized or not. The second factor in a cube corner prism's geometric efficiency, the product of the reflectances of its three faces for a particular β and ω, is greatly dependent on metallization or not. Typically, the combined face reflectance of aluminized cube corner prisms is about 64% with little dependence on β and ω. Typically, the combined face reflectance of non-metallized cube corner prisms is 100% for many β, ω combinations and less than 10% for many other β, ω combinations.
Retroreflective sheeting for road signs must not only retroreflect headlights at night but also have good luminance by day. Non-metallized cube corners are always preferred over metallized cube corners for road sign applications, because metallized cube corner sheeting appears rather dark by day. This darkness to the vehicle driver is in large part due to the combined face reflectance of the metallized prisms never being low, so they can better retroreflect sunlight and skylight back to sun and sky. By comparison, TIR frequently fails in a non-metallized prismatic sheeting, and then light leaks out of the prism. A white backing film behind the prisms diffusely reflects such light to eventually emerge nearly diffusely from the sheet.
K. N. Chandler, in an unpublished research paper for the British Road Research Laboratory entitled “The Theory of Corner-Cube Reflectors”, dated October, 1956, charted the TIR limits for some non-metallized cube corner retroreflectors. FIG. 3 shows a square cube corner with four illumination directions labeled −90, 0, 90, 180 according to angle ω. Shape is irrelevant to TIR limits, which depend solely on the tilts of the cube faces and the refractive index of the material.
FIG. 4 shows a diagram corresponding to FIG. 3, in the manner of Chandler's diagram. In FIG. 4, orientation angle ω (from −180° to 180°) is represented circumferentially and entrance angle β (from 0° to 90°) is represented radially, and the three-branched curve shows the maximum β at each ω for which TIR is maintained in the cube corner. A refractive index, n=1.586, was chosen for the example. FIG. 4 shows how the illuminating rays indicated +90 in FIG. 3 can be at any obliquity without there being TIR failure, while the light indicated −90 in FIG. 3 cannot exceed approximately 25° obliquity without TIR failure, and the light indicated 0 and 180 in FIG. 3 cannot exceed approximately 31° without TIR failure.
To alleviate the weakness at ω=−90° shown in FIG. 4, cube corners were commonly paired as shown in FIG. 5. The two Chandler curves in FIG. 6, corresponding to the two cube corners in FIG. 5, show how the left cube in FIG. 5 “covers for” the right cube in FIGS. 3 and 6 at omega=−90°, with the opposite occuring at omega=+90°. However, FIG. 6 shows no improvement beyond the 31° entrance angle at omega=0°.
The Chandler diagram depends on just two things: the angles at which the interior rays meet the three cube faces and the critical angle of the prism material. Thus the only non-trivial methods for changing the Chandler diagram are change of the refractive index of the prism material and tilt of the cube corner with respect to the article front surface.
Increasing the refractive index swells the region of TIR in the Chandler diagram as shown in FIG. 7. To shift the directions of the region's arms requires canting the cube corner.
A cube corner prism element in sheeting is said to be canted when its cube axis is not perpendicular to the sheeting front surface. The cube axis is the line from cube apex making equal angles to each of the three cube faces. This line would be a diagonal of the complete cube. Rowland U.S. Pat. No. 3,684,348 discloses “tipping” triangular cube corners in order to improve their large entrance angle performance at the expense of their small entrance angle performance. When an array of cube corners is formed by three sets of parallel symmetrical vee-grooves, and the directions of grooving are not at 60° to one another, the cube corners are canted.
Heenan et al. U.S. Pat. No. 3,541,606 discloses non-ruled canted cube corners with attention to the direction of cant. He found that a retroreflector comprised of unmetallized hexagonal cube corners and their 180° rotated pairs could have extended entrance angularity in two orthogonal planes (i.e., at ω=−90°, 0°, 90°, and 180°) provided the cube corners were canted in a direction that make a cube face more nearly parallel to the article front surface. This effect was due to 100% combined face reflectance at large β for these ω values. FIG. 8 shows a plan view of a pair of 10°canted cube corners like those of FIG. 19 of Heenan et al. U.S. Pat. No. 3,541,606, except for being square rather than hexagonal. The cube axes, shown as arrows, show that the canting has been symmetrical between the two cube faces that were not made more parallel to the article front. The dihedral edge between those two faces, the cube axis, and a normal line from the cube apex perpendicular to the article front surface lie in a single plane, and said normal line lies between said dihedral edge and the cube axis.
Applicant has found it useful to construct diagrams like Chandler's, but for canted cube corners. In this application all such diagrams are called “Chandler diagrams”. FIG. 9 is the Chandler diagram for the FIG. 8 pair of “face-more-parallel”, abbreviated “fmp”, cube corners formed in acrylic. FIG. 10 is the Chandler diagram for acrylic cube corners with fmp cant greater by 1.3°.
Hoopman U.S. Pat. No. 4,588,258 discloses applying the fmp cant to ruled triangular cube corners. The Chandler diagram generated for such ruled triangular cube corners is substantially the same as that obtained for Heenan et al. U.S. Pat. No. 3,541,606. Hoopman's cube corners have even better entrance angularity than Heenan's like canted cube corners because the triangular cube corners have greater effective aperture at large entrance angles than the hexagonal or square cube corners.
Heenan et al. U.S. Pat. No. 3,541,606 also discloses the “edge-more-parallel” canted cube corner, abbreviated “emp”. FIG. 11 shows a pair of such cubes with 10° emp cant. The cube axes, shown as arrows, show that the canting is symmetrical between two cube faces in such a way that the dihedral edge between them becomes more parallel to the article front surface. Said dihedral edge, the cube axis, and a normal line from the cube apex perpendicular to the article front surface lie in a single plane, and the cube axis lies between said dihedral edge and said normal line. FIG. 12 is the Chandler diagram generated for acrylic n=1.49 cube corners of FIG. 11. FIGS. 9 and 12 show the respective earmarks of face-more-parallel and edge-more-parallel cant. The symmetrical Chandler diagram from FIG. 6 is compressed in FIG. 9 and stretched in FIG. 12. Comparing FIGS. 6, 9, and 12, the diagramatic area of TIR is greatest in FIG. 6 and least in FIG. 9. However, the TIR region in FIG. 9 contains the most useful β,ω pairs.
Smith et al. U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,822,121 and 5,926,314 disclosed the ruling of arrays of cube corners by means of three sets of parallel symmetrical vee-grooves to equal depth, the grooves having directions such that between no two are the angles the same. The cube corners have the shapes of scalene triangles. Applicant has observed that the cube axes are necessarily canted, but the cant is neither flip nor emp. FIG. 14 shows a plan view of a pair of such cube corners with cant 9.74°. For each cube, the cube axis, shown as an arrow, show that the canting is not symmetrical between any two cube faces. There is no dihedral edge in a plane together with the cube axis and a normal drawn from the cube apex to the article front surface. In this application, such cant is called “compound cant”.
FIGS. 13A and 13B explain the shape of the Chandler diagram for a compound canted cube corner. FIG. 13A is the same plan view, normal to the article front surface, of one of the cube corners of FIG. 14, but the heavy arrows are different from the arrows of FIG. 14. The heavy arrows FIG. 13A follow the altitudes of the triangle and indicate the illumination orientation angles which, for a given entrance angle, make the smallest incidence angles upon the cube faces. For a given entrance angle, for all orientation angles of illumination, that along the arrow marked a will reach the face marked a at the smallest incidence angle because it alone has just one dimension of obliquity. Thus TIR will fail at face a for this orientation angle at a smaller entrance angle than at other orientation angles. FIG. 13B is the Chandler diagram for the cube corner of FIG. 13A. The arrow marked a in FIG. 13B corresponds to the arrow marked a in FIG. 13A. Arrow a in FIG. 13B points to the minimum β on that arcuate portion of the Chandler diagram that indicates where face a of FIG. 13A fails TIR. The arcuate portion is symmetrical about arrow a.
Applicant has found that if one edge of the triangle cube corner is made upright as in FIG. 13A, then if the triangle has angles A and B on that edge as shown in the Figure, elementary geometry determines that the Chandler diagram will have its three limbs centered at approximately the three χ angles:ω1=90°−A−B;ω2=90°+A−B;ω3=90°+A+B;  (1)
For the example of FIG. 13A, angle A=50° and angle B=60°, so the three Chandler limbs are centered on approximately −20°, 80°, and 200°. Of greater importance are the three angles separating the three limb directions. These are approximately:Δω1=2A;Δω2=2B;Δω3=360°−2A−2B,or Δω3=2C, where C is the third angle of the triangle.  (2)
It is desirable to have two limbs about 90° apart. According to the above relations, this requires one of the plan view triangle angles to equal 45°. Applicant has observed that this is not possible with a face-more-parallel canted isosceles triangular cube corner, since the triangle would be 45°-45°-90° implying that the plan view is squarely upon one face. Limbs 100° apart is good enough. This requires the triangle to be 50°-50°-80° which implies a cant of about 21.8°. The consequence of such large cant is a failure of TIR at β=0°. FIG. 16 shows how even a 16° face-more-parallel cant, with even a very high refractive index n=1.63, nearly fails TIR at β=0°.
Applicant has further observed that Chandler limbs 90° apart is possible with a edge-more-parallel canted isosceles triangular cube corner, by making the triangle 67.5°-67.5°-45°. This corresponds to approximately 10.8°cant. FIG. 12 shows the Chandler diagram for nearly this cube corner. There are problems involving the effective aperture at large β for emp designs, as will be discussed later.
Chandler limbs 90° apart is possible with a scalene triangular cube corner, such as the one with A=45°, B=60°, C=75°. It is more practical to make limbs 100° apart with A=50° as in FIG. 13A.
FIG. 14 illustrates the cube corner of FIG. 13A with a neighbor cube corner. Dashed arrows indicate the cube axes in the plan view. FIG. 15 illustrates how the Chandler diagrams for the two cube corners cover for each other. Rotating these cube corners approximately 10° counter-clockwise rotates the Chandler diagram likewise. Then there is possibility of good entrance angularity for ω=−90°, 0°, 90°, 180°.
FIG. 15 more resembles FIG. 9 than it resembles FIG. 12. In FIGS. 15 and 10, the six Chandler limbs are beginning to converge to four limbs. Applicant has observed that it can be shown that in general the six limbs are spaced according to 180°−2A, 180°−2B, and 180°−2C. Thus limb convergence is a result of one of the angles A, B, C being especially large. The isosceles triangle edge-more-parallel cube corner cannot have any angle especially large since its two largest angles are equal.
FIGS. 17A-17F are plan views of cube corners seen normal to the front surface of the sheeting, and the corresponding Chandler diagrams for paired cube corners. All the cube corners are canted by 11.3°, with the axis in plan view shown as a short arrow. The figures illustrate the continuum of cants from face-more-parallel of 17A to the edge-more-parallel of 17F. The isosceles triangle of FIG. 17A passes through scalene triangles to the isosceles triangle of FIG. 17F. Applicant has observed that in FIG. 17A, one face, indicated mp, is especially vulnerable to TIR failure because it is especially parallel to the sheeting front surface. In FIG. 17F, two faces, each indicated mp, are vulnerable to TIR failure because they are especially parallel to the sheeting front surface. The two faces flank the edge that is canted more parallel to the sheeting front surface. It is artificial to classify all cants as either face-more-parallel or edge-more-parallel as was attempted in Heenan et al. U.S. Pat. No. 6,015,214, since the optical characteristics must change continuously between face-more-parallel and edge-more-parallel.
Ruled triangular cube corners are useful for illustrating the continuum between face-more-parallel and edge-more-parallel cant, but cube corner cant is independent of cube corner shape. Cant is evident from the plan view, perpendicular to the sheeting surface, of the three angles formed at the cube apex. If D and E are two of the three angles formed around the apex in this view, and if d=−tan D and e=−tan E, then the cant is given by equation (3) which is equivalent to an equation in Heenan et al. U.S. Pat. No. 6,015,214.                               c          ⁢                                           ⁢          a          ⁢                                           ⁢          n          ⁢                                           ⁢          t                =                  arccos          ⁡                      (                                          1                                                      3                    ⁢                    d                    ⁢                                                                                   ⁢                    e                                                              ⁡                              [                                  1                  +                                                            (                                                                        d                                                +                                                  e                                                                    )                                        ⁢                                                                                                                        d                            ⁢                                                                                                                   ⁢                            e                                                    -                          1                                                                          d                          +                          e                                                                                                                    ]                                      )                                              (        3        )            
For ruled triangular cube corners, the triangle's three angles are simply the supplements of the angles in the plan view about the cube apex. For example, in FIG. 17C, the angle marked A plus the angle marked D must equal 180°.
Applicant provides the following five definitions of terms about cube cant:
Cube axis: The diagonal from the corner of a cube, said cube and its corner underlying the cube corner element.
Canted cube corner: a cube corner having its axis not normal to the sheeting surface. Cant is measured as the angle between the cube axis and the sheeting surface normal. Comment: when there is cant, a plan view normal to the sheeting surface shows the face angles at the apex not all 120°.
Edge-more-parallel cant: cube corner cant such that the cube axis, one of the dihedral edges, and a normal from the cube corner apex to the sheeting surface lie in one plane and the normal is between the cube axis and the dihedral edge. Comment: when cant is emp, a plan view normal to the sheeting surface shows two of the face angles at the apex equal, and smaller than the third face angle at the apex.
Face-more-parallel cant: cube corner cant such that the cube axis, one of the dihedral edges, and a normal from the cube corner apex to the sheeting surface lie in one plane and the dihedral edge is between the cube axis and the normal. Comment: when cant is fmp, a plan view normal to the sheeting surface shows two of the face angles at the apex equal, and larger than the third face angle at the apex.
Compound cant: cube corner cant such that the cube axis, one of the dihedral edges, and a normal from the cube corner apex to the sheeting surface do not lie in one plane. Comment: when there is compound cant, a plan view normal to the sheeting surface shows no two of the face angles at the apex equal.
Arrays of cube corners defined by three sets of parallel symmetrical vee-grooves ruled to equal depth are triangular cube corners. For these cube corners the triangle shape determines the cant and the cant determines the triangle shape. Cant is indicated by the angles in the plan view about the cube apex. Applicant has made the following observations with respect to cant and effective aperture. Cant determines, in conjunction with the index of refraction of the prism material, the effective aperture for each β,ω pair. FIGS. 18A shows an uncanted triangular cube corner and FIGS. 18B-D show three different triangular cube corners each having 9.74° of cant. Effective apertures are indicated for β=0°, at which angle the refractive index has no effect. The 9.74° canted cube corners have from 50% to 53.6% effective aperture at β=0°, compared with 66.7% for the uncanted cube corner. The triangles in FIGS. 18A-D are drawn with equal areas. When expressed as a fraction or percentage, “effective aperture” means the area of the cube corner that can participate in retroreflection divided by the area that the cube corner occupies in the array.
Through either geometric construction or by ray tracing, the effective aperture may be determined for arbitrary beta and omega. FIGS. 19A-F illustrate applicant's observations as to how the effective aperture of some triangular prism cube corners, refractive index 1.586, changes with β for four different ω's:
−90°; 0°; 90°; 180°; FIG. 19A for cant 0°; FIG. 19B for cant 9.74° fmp; FIG. 19C for the compound 9.74° from a 50°-60°-70° triangle; FIGS. 19D and 19E for 9.74° emp. FIGS. 19A-F are each for a single cube corner. There is an area of sheeting front surface corresponding to the whole cube corner prism. The calculation of fractional or percent effective aperture is on the basis of this area projected in the direction of illumination, that is, multiplied by the cosine of beta.
FIGS. 20A, 20B, and 20C are Chandler diagrams and plan views for the canted cube corners from FIGS. 19B, 19C, and 19D&E respectively. The triangular cube corner of FIG. 20B has no symmetry plane so it is unobvious how to define 0° or 90° omegas. The cube corner was rotated to make the thickest limb of its Chandler diagram center on 90° omega. Note that the entrance angularity is large near 180° omega but not near 0° omega. The pair cube, which takes care of −90° omega also takes care of 180°. This exploiting of asymmetry is the trick for improved entrance angularity with such cube corners.
All the curves in FIG. 19A for the uncanted cube corner show effective apertures decreasing with increasing beta. Each of FIGS. 19B-F, for the canted cube corners, have at least one curve showing effective aperture initially increasing with increasing beta. The 9.74° fmp cube has this for omega=90° (FIG. 19B). The 50-60-70 cube has this for omega=0° and 90° (FIG. 19C). The 9.74° emp cube has this for −90° (in FIG. 19D).
Chandler diagrams indicate for which β and ω values the combined face reflectance is high. This is a necessary, but not sufficient condition, for high retroreflectance. The other factor is effective aperture. Comparing FIGS. 19A-E and corresponding FIGS. 20A-C allows quick appraisal of designs. In particular, comparing FIGS. 19D and 19E with FIG. 20C reveal problems with the 9.74° emp cube corner. The Chandler diagram limits beta to just 42.8° for omega=−90°. Thus the highest effective apertures shown in FIG. 19D are wasted. The Chandler diagram shows unlimited beta for omega=+90°, where FIG. 19D shows a weak effective aperture curve. The Chandler diagram shows unlimited beta also for omegas −45° and −135° (indicated as 225°). FIG. 19E shows a weak effective aperture curve for these two omegas. FIG. 19E shows a strong effective aperture curve for omegas +45° and +135°, but FIG. 20C shows that TIR is limited to beta=19.7° in those directions. The 9.74° emp cube corner is a dunce among canted cube corners for such discoordination of the two factors.
The 9.74° fmp canted triangle cube corner has better luck. Its high curve of effective aperture in FIG. 19B is for omega=+90°, for which omega the cube, according to FIG. 20A, sustains TIR throughout the entrance angles. Its middling curves for effective aperture in FIG. 19B are for omega=0° and 180°, which show middling TIR sustenance in FIG. 20A. Its weakest curve for effective aperture in FIG. 19B is for omega=−90°, for which angle TIR is strongly truncated according to FIG. 20A. The omega=−90° will be covered by the mate cube. Hoopman U.S. Pat. No. 4,588,258 discloses fmp canted triangular cube corner pairs having a broad range of entrance angularity for all four omegas: −90°; 0°; 90°; 180°. Applicant has observed that this is due to the advantageous coordination of the two geometrical factors.
Applicant has observed that the most harmonious interaction of the two geometrical factors occurs for the compound canted triangle cube corner exemplified by the 50°-60°-70° prism of FIGS. 19C and 20B. As with the fmp canted cube corners of FIGS. 19B and and 20A, the highest curve of FIG. 19C is for omega=+90°, for which omega the cube, according to FIG. 20B, sustains TIR throughout the entrance angles. Also corresponding to the fmp canted cube example, the weakest curve of FIG. 19C is for omega=−90°, for which angle TIR is strongly truncated according to FIG. 20B. The compound canted cube corner differs from the fmp cube corner in that FIG. 19C has separate curves for omega=0° and omega=180°, respectively low and high, while FIG. 19B has a single middling curve. FIG. 20B shows that TIR is truncated at β=34.9° for the omega=0° direction while TIR is sustained to β=72.9° for the omega=180°. There is beautiful coordination between FIGS. 19C and 20B. The omega=−90° and omega=0° directions will be covered by the mate cube. Smith et al. U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,822,121 and 5,926,314 disclose scalene triangular cube corner pairs having a broad range of entrance angularity for all four omegas: −90°; 0°; 90°; 180°.
Retroreflective sheetings must be thin to be flexible, so the cubes must be small, on the order of 30 μm to 150 μm deep. Cubes of this size diffract light within a spread of angles relevant to roadway performance. Thus diffraction analysis of sheeting cube optical designs is necessary. Small active areas imply large diffraction patterns. In general, a design in which one of a pair of cubes sustains large active area, while the other dies, is preferable to a design in which both of a pair of cubes sustain middling active areas, totaling as much as the first design. For this and other reasons given, the compound canted triangle cube corner prism is advantageous over the fmp and emp types.
FIGS. 18A-D and again FIGS. 19A-E show that the effective aperture for the canted eamples for β=0° is between three-fourths and four-fifths of the effective aperture of the uncanted cube corner for β=0°. Since a majority of road sign uses have β always near 0°, this is a serious defect of the canted examples. The defect at β near 0° can be reduced by canting much less, that is, by compromising with the uncanted cube corners. Thus Szczech U.S. Pat. No. 5,138,488 discloses the performance of 4.3° fmp canted cube corner prisms. However 4.3° of cant, with pairing, with moderate refractive index such as 1.586, is too little cant to provide large entrance angularity in all four omega directions: −90°, 0°; 90°; 180°.
FIG. 21 is identical to FIG. 31 of Heenan et al. U.S. Pat. No. 6,015,214. It shows a two part tool comprising a non-rulable array of triangular cube corners. The tool would be repeated many times, adjoining at faces like that marked 124, for making a full tool. The front surface of the sheeting produced will be perpendicular to the lines shown vertical in FIG. 21. Supposing that the triangular bases in FIG. 21 are equilateral, and supposing that angle x equals 9.74°, then the cube corners are alternately canted 9.74° fmp and 9.74° emp. However they do not look like the ruled triangles with corresponding cants in FIGS. 18B and 18D. FIG. 22 shows a plan view, normal to the sheeting, of the alternating fmp and emp cube corners, that would result from the tool of FIG. 21. Each cube corner has effective aperture of 62.7% at β=0°. This compares favorably to 50.0% for the ruled 9.74° fmp cube corner of FIG. 18B and also to 53.6% for the ruled 9.74° emp cube corner of FIG. 18D. Heenan et al. U.S. Pat. No. 6,015,214 did not disclose or suggest these advantages in effective apertures for the triangular cube corners of FIG. 21. The first advantage should be understood as a geometrical consequence of making the singular edge of the fmp triangle less deep than the rest of the triangle. The second advantage should be understood as a geometrical consequence of making the singular edge of the emp triangle deeper than the rest of the triangle. Depth is regarded viewing downward upon the tool in FIG. 21.
Mimura et al. U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,083,607 and 6,318,866 B1 disclose that if the ruling of emp triangular cube corners is modified to make the sharp groove, corresponding to the isosceles triangle's short edge, deeper than the other two grooves, this generally improves the effective aperture. Mimura et al. U.S. Pat. No. 6,390,629 B1 discloses that if ruling of fmp triangular cube corners is modified to make the blunt groove, corresponding to the isosceles triangle's long edge, deeper than the other two grooves, this generally improves the effective aperture.
Hexagonal or rectangular cube corners generally have 100% effective aperture at β=0°, which falls rapidly with increasing β. Heenan et al U.S. Pat. No. 6,015,214 discloses decentering the apex in a hexagonal or rectangular cube corner in order to improve retroreflectance at large β while sacrificing retroreflectance at small β Decentering the apex does not affect the Chandler diagram, but strongly affects the effective aperture for various β and ω. Triangular cube corners have relatively small effective aperture for small β. An uncanted triangle cube corner has only 66.7% effective aperture for β=0°. More desirably canted triangle cube corners are weaker yet for β=0°.
The purpose of this invention is to improve the effective apertures of the most desirably canted triangular cube corners. The above discussion has identified these as triangular cube corners having compound cants, rather than the face-more-parallel or edge-more-parallel cants. The technique for improving the effective aperture involves ruling the defining grooves to three different depths so as to displace the apex of the cube corner towards the centroid of the triangle describing the groove paths, all as seen in plan view.